morchu
05-04 02:02 PM
Please be aware that logic and emotions doesnt matter much for this.
Get the exact rules on the basis of which they denied your case, and prove why they were wrong. An attorney will be helpful if you are not good in interpreting the laws.
My I-485 was denied April 14. USCIS said I only sent them a partial answer to their request for evidence.
I filed for I-485 and I-130 in Nov. 2008 and in December we had to resend all mine, my husband (sponsor) and my cosponsor's tax info. which we did. My case was resumed but I never received my EAD. I contacted the USCIS regarding this and they responded with another RFE; they needed my cosponsor's tax. info again. We resend the exact same things as we did in December and in the meantime I contact my senator and the ombudsman who both look into the case and tell me the USCIS has promised to respond to me a.s.a.p.
USCIS's response: My I-485 has been denied, my cosponsor did not send in all his tax info. My cosponsor, who has an identical copy of everything he has sent now three times (everything was in the original application in Nov. too) says it is all there. The USCIS wants us to file for a motion to reopen the case which costs $585. To me this is ridiculous; I originally lost my job (I was working under OPT) becuase they kept delaying my case, and now they want more money? I know it's my word against theirs but we are considering applying for the motion to reopen but was wondering how long do they have to accept or deny this. Also, we are submitting a waiver for the fee due to my husband also being unemployed at the moment and need our savings if we have to leave the country but are wondering if we can also send a check along with the waiver in case they won't waive the fee. They denied the case on April 14, 2009 but did not mail the letter out until the april 23 - we now have less than a week to file for a motion.
Please, if anyone has any experience with filing a motion let us know about it.
Get the exact rules on the basis of which they denied your case, and prove why they were wrong. An attorney will be helpful if you are not good in interpreting the laws.
My I-485 was denied April 14. USCIS said I only sent them a partial answer to their request for evidence.
I filed for I-485 and I-130 in Nov. 2008 and in December we had to resend all mine, my husband (sponsor) and my cosponsor's tax info. which we did. My case was resumed but I never received my EAD. I contacted the USCIS regarding this and they responded with another RFE; they needed my cosponsor's tax. info again. We resend the exact same things as we did in December and in the meantime I contact my senator and the ombudsman who both look into the case and tell me the USCIS has promised to respond to me a.s.a.p.
USCIS's response: My I-485 has been denied, my cosponsor did not send in all his tax info. My cosponsor, who has an identical copy of everything he has sent now three times (everything was in the original application in Nov. too) says it is all there. The USCIS wants us to file for a motion to reopen the case which costs $585. To me this is ridiculous; I originally lost my job (I was working under OPT) becuase they kept delaying my case, and now they want more money? I know it's my word against theirs but we are considering applying for the motion to reopen but was wondering how long do they have to accept or deny this. Also, we are submitting a waiver for the fee due to my husband also being unemployed at the moment and need our savings if we have to leave the country but are wondering if we can also send a check along with the waiver in case they won't waive the fee. They denied the case on April 14, 2009 but did not mail the letter out until the april 23 - we now have less than a week to file for a motion.
Please, if anyone has any experience with filing a motion let us know about it.
wallpaper Picture credit: Alpina. Send us more 2007 Alpina D3 Coupe pictures.
gc_on_demand
03-25 02:16 PM
Folks,
I would like to share my success story of getting my I-485 application approved with a revoked/withdrawn I-140. We received our Green Cards and Welcome Letters in the mail yesterday. If you go through my profile, you should be able to get most of the information, but here it is anyway:
1] Company A applied for my LC followed by the I-140 application. We never got a chance to file I-485.
2] After I quite company A, they withdrew my I-140 application.
3] Company B started the process again with my labor application, followed by my new I-140 application. We didn't capture the older PD at this stage, but the A# was the same as the old one.
4] When we sent in our I-485 application, we included a letter describing that we would like to retain the older PD (we sent them a snippet of page 27 of the Field Adjudicator's Manual - Yates memo). In the interest of being transparent, we mentioned that the earlier I-140 was withdrawn by the previous employer. After an unrelated RFE, our case was finally approved last Friday (03/18).
I am sharing this information so that others who are stuck in a similar situation can use this as a datapoint in their struggle against the USCIS. I wish you all the very best in your Green Card journey.
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
I would like to share my success story of getting my I-485 application approved with a revoked/withdrawn I-140. We received our Green Cards and Welcome Letters in the mail yesterday. If you go through my profile, you should be able to get most of the information, but here it is anyway:
1] Company A applied for my LC followed by the I-140 application. We never got a chance to file I-485.
2] After I quite company A, they withdrew my I-140 application.
3] Company B started the process again with my labor application, followed by my new I-140 application. We didn't capture the older PD at this stage, but the A# was the same as the old one.
4] When we sent in our I-485 application, we included a letter describing that we would like to retain the older PD (we sent them a snippet of page 27 of the Field Adjudicator's Manual - Yates memo). In the interest of being transparent, we mentioned that the earlier I-140 was withdrawn by the previous employer. After an unrelated RFE, our case was finally approved last Friday (03/18).
I am sharing this information so that others who are stuck in a similar situation can use this as a datapoint in their struggle against the USCIS. I wish you all the very best in your Green Card journey.
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
anilsal
09-11 10:45 PM
and chose standard shipping ( just 1.50 or so more than regular), it is arriving tomorrow.
So people who are attending the rally, you still can make it.
BUY IV Merchandise immediately.
So people who are attending the rally, you still can make it.
BUY IV Merchandise immediately.
2011 ALPINA D3 Bi-Turbo Coupe.
kshitijnt
04-18 06:55 PM
Today my wifes attorney informed her that her H1 was selected, non masters, non premium process. He also provided her a WAC number
more...
Winner
04-21 12:28 PM
If I485 is denied for wrong reason (due to USCIS error), I understand that the applicant and attorney can file a MTR, but during the time till the case is reopened again, is it legal for the employee to work on EAD?
My assumption here is once the denial notice is received, it may take few weeks/months to gather the necessary information, send it to USCIS and then the case gets reopened.
My assumption here is once the denial notice is received, it may take few weeks/months to gather the necessary information, send it to USCIS and then the case gets reopened.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
HOPE_GC_SOON
07-17 12:48 PM
Its too much of waste of a time, on this thread, and misleading all the time, llooking for some interesting news, like processing times.
Guys: Can we stop this somehow, and DO Focuson other major news.
Thanks
Admin should have closed this thread by now.
Thanks.
Guys: Can we stop this somehow, and DO Focuson other major news.
Thanks
Admin should have closed this thread by now.
Thanks.
2010 Alpina D3 Coupe
Bpositive
08-13 12:16 PM
Have heard of US citizens in India who are having problems getting work visa. And are getting paid in cash! Seems like the number of illegal US citizen aliens in India may be going up over the next ten years....
more...
munnu77
06-05 01:41 PM
-
hair BMW-Alpina-D3-Coupe-3
Muj@ck0_it
03-11 03:20 AM
I'll cast my vote for paddy...:yes:
more...
Rb_newsletter
02-22 03:14 PM
just curious. Are you working for a consulting company?
hot BMW Alpina D3 Bi-Turbo Coupe
gc2
12-03 03:15 PM
why would you ask about unemployment for a GC application based on employment category or so i assume.
more...
house The New BMW ALPINA D3 Bi-Turbo Coupe. The factor with which the new D3 Coupe
canmt
10-19 10:37 AM
You are required to send a notice to your lawyer letting him know that you no longer require his/her service. Also notify USCIS in writing that your lawyer does not represent you anymore and send correspondence to you directly. If any USCIS notice addressed to you was transmitted to your former counsel, it should be available to you from counsel. You may wish to request forwarding of all post-representation correspondence that arrived after representation ceased. Although that lawyer may have no obligation to perform any services for you, the office should not impede your ability to answer USCIS requests. You should call the service center and request a copy of any correspondence that was sent to your lawyer until the lawyer sends a notice to USCIS letting them know that he no longer represents your case or until another lawyer files a G-28 for you.
I hope this helps and good luck on your greencard chase.
I hope this helps and good luck on your greencard chase.
tattoo BMW 3 Series Coupe Alpina D3
simplistik
03-09 12:15 AM
LoL... mlk I just took a real look at your site and I noticed at the bottom you have all those little links... it looks like those links are supposed to be referencing the boxes they are in. So like Tekken, is an investor... Alicia Keys is a privacy policy...
:lol:
Also, the arrows pointing up make no sense... they should be pointing down as they are pointing to nothing :D
:lol:
Also, the arrows pointing up make no sense... they should be pointing down as they are pointing to nothing :D
more...
pictures BMW ALPINA D3 BiTurbo
black_logs
03-01 03:46 PM
They have special love for 45 days. recently they have come with 45 days expiry days for the labor, How insane a dept. can be , this is a perfect example !!!!!
I wonder why they didn't write
9+10 = 45
I wonder why they didn't write
9+10 = 45
dresses Unveiling of BMW Alpina D3
glus
11-06 09:06 AM
Hi
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to
What is even more surprising is that it also says This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
Hi PSN,
Please do not worry. I have seen this happening with one of my friend's I-130. Although a different application, his status suddenly changed to "pending" from approved years ago. He took infopass and they told him it was a system glitch. A few days later after infopass his status reversed back to "approved." I would take info pass, along with approval notice and just explain the situation. Do not worry until you know the reason. Also, do not think it is some kind of an investigation. When USCIS does investigations on approved cases, the status shows "Case re-opened". Let us know what they told you after infopass.
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to
What is even more surprising is that it also says This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
Hi PSN,
Please do not worry. I have seen this happening with one of my friend's I-130. Although a different application, his status suddenly changed to "pending" from approved years ago. He took infopass and they told him it was a system glitch. A few days later after infopass his status reversed back to "approved." I would take info pass, along with approval notice and just explain the situation. Do not worry until you know the reason. Also, do not think it is some kind of an investigation. When USCIS does investigations on approved cases, the status shows "Case re-opened". Let us know what they told you after infopass.
more...
makeup BMW ALPINA D3 Bi-Turbo Coupe
sixburgh
06-28 07:29 PM
If your EAD employer is also your H1-B sponsor, then you can get H1B stamped and re-enter using H1B and subsequently continue to work for the same employer.
However, if your EAD employer is not the H1B sponsor, then entering on H1B complicates matters, as you always enter on H1B with the intention of working for your H1B sponsor, which will not be true if your EAD employer has not gone through the process for hiring a H1B employee.
Ead and h1 employer are the same.
What happens when I want to change my job by using ac21 later?
However, if your EAD employer is not the H1B sponsor, then entering on H1B complicates matters, as you always enter on H1B with the intention of working for your H1B sponsor, which will not be true if your EAD employer has not gone through the process for hiring a H1B employee.
Ead and h1 employer are the same.
What happens when I want to change my job by using ac21 later?
girlfriend BMW-Alpina-D3-Coupe-1
map_boiler
08-02 01:41 PM
FedEx is the best, by far. UPS next. DHL is the worst (my personal experience).
Always use FedEx, and if not possible, use UPS. Never DHL.
FedEx is the best shipping company for both domestic and international.
DHL is worse than UPS.
It is in this order
FedEX
UPS
DHL
I have very very bad experiance with DHL.
Always use FedEx, and if not possible, use UPS. Never DHL.
FedEx is the best shipping company for both domestic and international.
DHL is worse than UPS.
It is in this order
FedEX
UPS
DHL
I have very very bad experiance with DHL.
hairstyles Alpina BMW D3 Bi Turbo Coupe
Pineapple
12-26 01:05 PM
Given that many have spent 10 years, or almost a third of their lives here, they can hardly be called "aliens". Also, given that nothing is permanent, I propose the following term:
Non-permanent, resident, non-alien :D
Non-permanent, resident, non-alien :D
jonty_11
09-17 07:11 PM
its probably this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21334
correct..it is teh link..so AP is indeed for Emergent Travel....and there could be possible issues when reentering US if IO is an AHole...
SCARY!!!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21334
correct..it is teh link..so AP is indeed for Emergent Travel....and there could be possible issues when reentering US if IO is an AHole...
SCARY!!!
perm2gc
08-02 02:22 PM
You probably meant to say that you are NOT an immigration lawyer. Correct?
Yes..sorry for the Mistake
Yes..sorry for the Mistake
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario